.png)
.jpg)
The reported chemical weapons strike in the Eastern suburbs of Damascus in Syria on 21 August which killed up to 1300 people has taken the current Syrian conflict to yet another level of brutality, a level which could soon prompt international military action on Syria. The voices for taking stringent military action against the Syrian regime are growing with the US busy in not only finalizing its military options but also getting together international support for it. Already, the US has moved three warships into the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the fourth is on the way1 .
As the military plans get finalized and unfold, the situation poses several questions. Can the US and its allies ignore this chemical weapons strike and leave it to the Syrian people to decide? In case of a military strike, what are the options and how effective will they achieve their goals? Will a military strike result in bringing peace to Syria or plunge it deeper into conflict (ala Iraq and Libya)?
Options of military strikes and their likely effect
Military strikes, it seems is being forced up on the US. Coming on the backdrop of President Obama declaring "Use of chemical weapons in Syria as the red line" in August 20122 , US now stands committed to take suitable punitive action against Syria. Any violation on this could send wrong signals to Iran, North Korea and other rogue state as well as non-state actors in the world that they could get away with threats, thus increasing chances of 'wars of necessity' in future should they too cross the red lines. The military strikes on Syria are thus no longer about Syria alone but more importantly about the US and its declared objectives on issues of conflict in the globe.
The scope of military strikes are however hard to define. Would the mission be only about destruction of chemical weapons or will it enlarge in scope to include regime change? Also, is it possible to take out chemical weapons with stand-off military action without boots on the ground? What about collateral damage when chemical weapon facility is targeted resulting in release of poisonous chemicals in the atmosphere. As seen in Libya and Iraq, stand-off military campaigns do achieve immediate tactical victories but long-term effects are generally disastrous.
No fly zone
Amongst the options being talked about is enforcing a "No Fly Zone". Unlike Libya, this would not be an easy task. According to a US Air Force study: "Syria's air-defense network at the start of the civil war ranked among the most capable and dense in the world, perhaps second only to North Korea's and Russia's. The overlapping coverage of missiles and radars consisted of approximately 650 static air-defense sites, the most worrisome of which housed the SA-5 Gammon, having a range of 165 nautical miles and an altitude capability of 100,000 feet."3 No fly zone would achieve little purpose in the Syrian conflict as the majority of fighting between the rebels and regime is fought on ground. Also, 'No fly zone' does not eliminate future use of chemical weapons by either side through ground based platforms.
Punitive strikes
Punitive stand-off strikes by the US and its allies from warships and air strikes is another option on the table. The rationale; it would give a tough message to Assad that he cannot resort to chemical weapons in the future. It could also severely degrade his military capability for future. Targets could include military headquarters, Air defence sites, Command and Control centers and even missile production and storage facilities. Like the 'No Fly Zone' option, it runs the risk of collateral damage due to leakage of toxic chemicals. It also does not eliminate the threat of future chemical strikes.
Special forces operations to take out chemical weapons facilities
Destruction or removal of chemical weapons is the only sure way of preventing the use or proliferation of chemical weapons. This could be done by destroying portions of Syria's stockpiles; hindering its movement or by seizing key installations. This would require a massive US involvement, including troops on the ground, mostly Special Forces. Also with such widely dispersed facilities and the capability to move chemical weapons quickly from one place to another, it runs the potential risk of sucking in more and more troops, and a prolonged campaign.
Other options
There are those other options of creating buffer zones along Syria's borders with neighbouring countries from which rebel forces could operate and within which refugees could be supplied. Increasing support to the Syrian opposition including supply of arms is another option, but neither of the options eliminates the threat of chemical weapons, the condition which has prompted the threat of military action in Syria.
Effect and impact of military strikes
Given the polarized stance on Syria globally as well as the region, it is unlikely that any punitive military action led by the US would go uncontested or unanswered. Russia and China have already asked for exercising caution in the absence of clear proof against the Syrian regime. Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich called on the international community to show "prudence" over the crisis and observe international law. "Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," he said in a statement4 . Iran has warned of a larger conflict when Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Abbas Araqchi, said "We want to strongly warn against any military attack in Syria. There will definitely be perilous consequences for the region. These complications and consequences will not be restricted to Syria. It will engulf the whole region. "
While Turkey, Israel and Jordan are likely to support the military strikes and even take part, the GCC countries and the Arab League are unsure of their active support and declined to back a retaliatory military strike reflecting deep public hostility to any intervention and complex regional geo-political landscape 6. Iran and Russia are likely to get actively involved should military strike take place. In such a scenario, the spillover effects into Turkey, Israel or Jordan seem likely, engulfing the region into a much wider conflict. Also groups like Al Qaeda and Hamas could make use of this opportunity to strike Western targets as well as Israel.
Likely impact on India
For India, the possibility of military strikes in Syria could not have come at a worse time. With economy in severe crisis due to falling rupee against the US dollar and investments drying up, increase in crude oil prices could hugely inflate India's import bill and further destabilize the economy. Already, crude oil price has risen as Brent crude jumped to a 6-month high of $117.23 a barrel, while US crude hit $111.75 a barrel8 .
Apart from economics, India faces a huge challenge in terms of regional security. If Syria blows out into a regional conflict with global players actively involved including the US, security in South Asia would suffer badly. Afghanistan is witnessing increase in civilian casualties and potency of Taliban strikes this year. If the US gets involved in Syria militarily, its already weaning interest in Afghanistan is likely to go down. With only a few fighting months remaining this year before winter sets in Kabul, it could be ominous signs for security in Afghanistan and resultant effect on India and the region. Also, Al Qaeda and its affiliates are likely to take advantage of any spin offs from any military campaign in Syria, as we saw in Libya and its consequent effects in Mali and the entire Sahel region in West Africa. India, once again could bear the brunt of the rise of terrorism in the region.
Finally, with over 6 million expats in West Asia, any military flare up in the region could have adverse impact for India. Not only will the issue of evacuating people be a taxing option, but the resultant drying up of remunerations sent home would hurt Indian economy.
The crossing of 'red line' by Syria has put the US and its allies in a difficult situation. The situation demands punitive action against Syrian regime but no military options seems effective enough to rule out future chemical weapons attacks. Boots on the ground does not seem to be a popular option right now. The possibility of the situation flaring up into a wider regional conflict also looks very plausible which could spiral into a 'mini world war' with the possibility of use of WMDs. Other issues such as Iran nuclear issue, Israel-Palestine peace talks, Egypt crisis seem insignificant right now. As the situation unfolds with perilous consequences, India looks on without even getting involved in the conflict.
By Special Arrangement with : Observer Research Foundation (www.orfonline.org)